Set-Up for Ripping

[mville]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

I have one other question at this point. Mville, you wrote: " Don't forget, there is also the Review Metadata window and the Tags panel in CD Ripper, for editing/adding tags." I don't see any reference to Review Metadata Window, or to Tags panel on the dbpa page; were are these?

Perhaps you should read the CD Ripper help pages.

[garym]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

for example, a VORBIS COMMENT tag in a FLAC file can contain "custom fields" so that means that the number of fields in a FLAC tag is essentially infinite.

[mville]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

I think I see that the problem has not been one of failure to understand the concepts; rather it is one of the ambiguous definition of terms. Specifically, I have thought in terms of "tag-groups" and "tags" whereas others have been using the terms "fields" and "tags." (I think garym made this clear.) If I am not mistaken, the word "field" (what I have called "tag-group") is the tag category name that is beside the text boxes at the top of the main page; we have both used "tag" to refer to what it typed into the box. Therefore, there are a limited number of "fields" (8 or 12 to be exact), and an unlimited number of "tags." This is the point I emphasized in the Overview I wrote, only I used the terms "tag-groups" and "tags" instead. (note when I counted the tag-groups I did not include the "comment" field/tag-group.)

In all metadata software references I have come across, fields and tags are viewed as the same thing. It has become commonplace to refer to ID Tag fields as tags. Even the Illustrate software guides and help pages refer to tags, rather than fields, although, as garym points out, this is not strictly correct.

So, the idea of a limited number of "fields" (8 or 12 to be exact), and an unlimited number of "tags.", is not correct.

[garym]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

I have one other question at this point. Mville, you wrote: " Don't forget, there is also the Review Metadata window and the Tags panel in CD Ripper, for editing/adding tags." I don't see any reference to Review Metadata Window, or to Tags panel on the dbpa page; were are these?

see these two screen shots.

[garym]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

Thanks, mville, garym, oggy, your last post are helpful in cutting through the misunderstandings.

I think I see that the problem has not been one of failure to understand the concepts; rather it is one of the ambiguous definition of terms. Specifically, I have thought in terms of "tag-groups" and "tags" whereas others have been using the terms "fields" and "tags." (I think garym made this clear.) If I am not mistaken, the word "field" (what I have called "tag-group") is the tag category name that is beside the text boxes at the top of the main page; we have both used "tag" to refer to what it typed into the box. Therefore, there are a limited number of "fields" (8 or 12 to be exact), and an unlimited number of "tags." This is the point I emphasized in the Overview I wrote, only I used the terms "tag-groups" and "tags" instead. (note when I counted the tag-groups I did not include the "comment" field/tag-group.)

I've only read this first paragraph, but you've still got it wrong. Typically there is only ONE tag attached to a digital song file. For example, with an mp3 file, the usual *tag* is in the format of ID3v2.x (ID3v2.3 or ID3v2.4). With a FLAC file the usual single tag attached to a file is called a "VORBIS COMMENT" tag. But this one tag (the single ID3v2.x or VORBIS COMMENT) can contain many, many fields. These fields are ARTIST, GENRE, TRACK, DISC, ALBUM, ALBUM ARTIST, ARTIST SORT, COMPOSER, STYLE, VENUE, DATE, and on and on.

EDIT: To be fair, we are often sloppy with the use of the term "tag". Folks, including myself, often refer to something like the "ARTIST tag" when it would be more correct to say "the ARTIST field that holds metadata regarding the track artist that is contained in the single VORBIS COMMENT *tag* that is attached to the FLAC file." It's just easier to say "the ARTIST tag" and most people understand what this means.

EDIT2: It is in fact standard to call things "fields" inside a tag. See for example,

https://wiki.xiph.org/Field_names

If one is talking about a FLAC file, COMPOSER is a *field" contained inside a "vorbis comment" tag (and each digital track file has a single Vorbis Comment tag attached to it. That single tag can have dozens of fields. "Beethoven" is the word you enter into that COMPOSER field (that is one field among many inside the single VORBIS COMMENT tag).

I'll read the rest of your note, but right off the bat, I wanted to let you know that there is still some confusion on your part. Have you googled for info on tags? Like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis_comment

[dbarnby]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

Thanks, mville, garym, oggy, your last post are helpful in cutting through the misunderstandings.

I think I see that the problem has not been one of failure to understand the concepts; rather it is one of the ambiguous definition of terms. Specifically, I have thought in terms of "tag-groups" and "tags" whereas others have been using the terms "fields" and "tags." (I think garym made this clear.) If I am not mistaken, the word "field" (what I have called "tag-group") is the tag category name that is beside the text boxes at the top of the main page; we have both used "tag" to refer to what it typed into the box. Therefore, there are a limited number of "fields" (8 or 12 to be exact), and an unlimited number of "tags." This is the point I emphasized in the Overview I wrote, only I used the terms "tag-groups" and "tags" instead. (note when I counted the tag-groups I did not include the "comment" field/tag-group.)

I'm sorry if my use of different terminology caused a problem. In fact, my second motivation in sharing the Overview was to move toward the definition and standardization of terminology. I was hung on my own petard. I don't know if there is, indeed, a standard, agreed-upon term for what garym has called "field" and what I have called "tag-group." Before I chose "tag-group" I considered any number of other terms including "dimension" to mean" tag-group" or in garym's terminology, "field." Along with dimension one could use the form "value" (of the dimension) to refer to tag, but I think the term tag is too useful and well-entrenched to change. While there seemed to be no generic term for tag category names (composer, artist, etc.) I chose to keep "tag" and use "tag-group" for tag category. At the end of the day, such a standard agreed-upon term is needed. Whether it is "field" or "tag-group" or something else doesn't really matter.

Once the terminology is standardized what I've written in the Overview is my attempt to explain to a beginner (me) the fundamental variables and relationships inherent in dbpa which are common to all, and which in no way constrains the personal variability that various users bring to their music. I believe that knowing such fundamentals right up front can speed the process of learning/using dbpa immensely because it get everyone on the same page.

If one goes through the Overview and substitutes "field" (or whatever the term should be) for "tag-group" then I think the problem that some have found with the Overview may vanish.

Further, there seems to be a tendency to use the word "tag" loosely to mean what garym calls "field," and what I have called "tag-group." Just today, in fact, evasv has posted (*172) "As I see it: Composer is a tag and Beethoven is a value." This view is the reverse of the perspective held by garym and mville and me. The truth is, I think, that for lack of a clear definition there are lots of users with different points of view. It matters not at all who's "right" or "wrong"; all that matters is that we all get on the same page.

Perhaps I've missed it but I've never seen any official term relating to these 8 to 12 categories. Does anyone know of such? Much confusion can be eliminated by establishing one.

To my way of thinking, "tag" is a word (or words) assigned to a CD or piece or music by the user, and therefore tag is the words he writes in the text box, while the tag category (or field, or tag-group, or dimension, or whatever the term is) is the name shown on the dbpa main screen for the 8 or 12 text boxes; these names constitute a fixed group and they are properties of the dbpa software. I think the main point is that there seems to be no accepted term to use for this collection of 8 or 12 categories (genre, year, disc, comment, album artist, album, artist, composer, work, movement number, movement count, movement name). Should it be field, or tag-group, or dimension, or what?

I have one other question at this point. Mville, you wrote: " Don't forget, there is also the Review Metadata window and the Tags panel in CD Ripper, for editing/adding tags." I don't see any reference to Review Metadata Window, or to Tags panel on the dbpa page; were are these?

[evasv]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

Is "composer" the tag, or does tag refer to the words that the user types into the box, e.g. "Beethoven"?

As I see it:

Composer is a tag and Beethoven is a value

[Oggy]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

These refer to new Classical music tags (originated in iTunes v.12.5) i.e. Work, Movement Number, Movement Count and Movement Name.

Has anyone used these new iTunes tags, offered up for Genre Classical and Opera?

If so, what was the result outside an Apple environment, please?

[garym]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

I'll use as an example the box labeled "composer." Is "composer" the tag, or does tag refer to the words that the user types into the box, e.g. "Beethoven"?
This is a pretty fundamental issue and I'd better get this right in order to understand anything.

I don't really understand your question. A "tag" is simply a few bits of data attached to a digital music file. This "tag" contains metadata. This metadata is represented by "fields". There are lots of fields. For example ARTIST is a field, containing the name of the artist for the track. COMPOSER is a field, containing the name of the composer of the track. On any field, it might be automatically filled in from online databases that dbpa uses or one may always manually type in the content they want in that field. In your example, "Beethoven" might automatically be in the COMPOSER field or you might have to type it in.

[mville]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

At the top of the main screen are seven input boxes (eleven if genre is classical or opera). These input boxes have names;

There are in fact 8 text boxes (plus the new 4 classical music text boxes, if Genre is classical or opera) at the top of the main CD Ripper window and the Compilation tick box.

Don't forget, there is also the Review Metadata window and the Tags panel in CD Ripper, for editing/adding tags.

I'll use as an example the box labeled "composer." Is "composer" the tag, or does tag refer to the words that the user types into the box, e.g. "Beethoven"?

I don't understand here. What else would you put in the Composer text box, if not the Composer(s)?

[dbarnby]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

I seems like I've gotten some negative response to the overview which I posted to state my understanding of dbpa, in hopes any errors it contains would prompt someone on the forum to point the errors out and explain my error so I could learn. That hasn't really happened; however, in reviewing the responses I did get I may have scoped out one possible area of confusion. I hope someone will either confirm that I've got it right or else explain it to me.

At the top of the main screen are seven input boxes (eleven if genre is classical or opera). These input boxes have names; I'll use as an example the box labeled "composer." Is "composer" the tag, or does tag refer to the words that the user types into the box, e.g. "Beethoven"?

This is a pretty fundamental issue and I'd better get this right in order to understand anything.

Thanks,
Don

[dbarnby]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

Thanks garym, I appreciate your detailed replies. You've solved some of my questions; I probably get back to you on others.
Now, I have to go to dinner.
Don

[mville]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

2. I keep multi disk CDs separated by subfolders for each disk because this allows proper treatment by PerfectTunes if I want to check these later with AccurateRip (e.g., after I've copied the folders to a different harddrive for backup)

Turns out I was wrong about *2 above. One doesn't have to use separate disk folders for PerfectTunes to work. All tracks can be in one folder, with naming that includes disk and track number, such as 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02 etc. (But I still personally use the process that keeps each disk in separate subfolder, as Oggy referenced above.

Correct. PerfectTunes AccurateRip works fine for me and I use the single folder per album approach.

[garym]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

1) Here's a revised Naming string sequence that I believe incorporates your comments:

NC: genre\artist\album\composer\disc no.
CL: genre\composer\album\artist\disk no.

What do you think about that?
What, then, would be the explicit naming strings I would use for each?

Still makes no sense to me. For example, you'd want a NC album to show up under genre and artist. That makes sense. But then you'd want a separate subdirectory under the album for each composer on the album. Heck, every song could have a different composer. Seems like that structure would be a real mess. Why even have composer in the naming structure for non-classical. Again, you'll have composer in the TAG in case you want to search or browse for composer. But why try to put it in name structure????

What I need from you (and I've asked you for this several times) is a few specific examples of what you want it to look like using real CD info. Post 163 above from Oggy contains good examples that I originally provided. That is, notice that with my naming string I also provide example output using real data on "The Beatles", etc. to illustrate what the outcome looks like. That's what I'm asking you for.

4) I do understand that I can make album artist whatever I choose. What I was asking is: I believe that dbpa automatically inserts the default "various artists" when the compilation box is checked and it is not overridden. However, regarding various composers and various artists (not album artists) are the simply entered "manually" at the user's choice? Do I have this right?

I can't recall dbpa automatically inserting "various artists" in ALBUM ARTIST for compilations. But maybe it does. I'm so used to manually editing or deleting the ALBUM ARTIST field content on every CD I rip, that I probably just do it automatically without thinking about it. And yes, you have ultimate flexibility (you have the right) to manually make these things whatever you want.

7) You have suggested that I'm pretty confused about several things:

a) In item 7 you point to tags, file, directory names, and structure.

b) In you previous post you point to "mixing up of tagging with the searching and filtering music typically done by music library databases and players "

I'm always open to finding I'm wrong, however, in these cases I believe I do, indeed, understand. The problems I think stem from misunderstanding of each other's terminology and perhaps poor writing on my part.

Regardless of what I may have led you to believe, my understanding is that the Naming string establishes the structure of the folder-tree one sees in the File tree (its sequence and indentation) and has nothing to do with the selection of music by way of the music player app for listening. So that we're clear on terminology, I assume (though I've never seen any clear definition) that the words, file, directory names, and structure that you refer to are in fact concepts that relate to the record of the music as it's stored on the PC C drive or in the NAS, i.e. the File Explorer.

Tags, on the other hand, are used to sequentially in the music player app to select music stored in the PC. If any part of what I've just written is wrong please tell me.

Correct in both cases. (although not sure what you mean by sequentially in this context, but yes most players/music libraries are using the tags in the file, and not the file names in browsing, searching, selecting, and playing music.)

Still, I'm unsure of the answer to my original question *7 which was how do different naming strings (which I believe call for different folder-tree structures) work together in a File Explorer when that graphic is built from both Naming strings?

they work together just like any file structure works together. nothing strange about it. If the parent directory is the same, then only some of the subdirectories will be different based on your choices. For example, see the two pictures I've inserted below. Note the "compilations" subdirectory. It is part of my overall music directory (parent directory is music, then flac is a subdirectory, then either artist subdirectories or compilations/album subdirectories), even though the underlying organization within compilations is different (album based) than the rest (which are artist based). You just need to make sure that the parent level directories are the same for all the schemes you use (such as the "music" and "flac" in my example).

8. It's encouraging to hear that writing a desired Naming string couldn't be any simpler. Indeed, I've found the help pages in dbpa that provide a list of meanings for various "entries," however I have not run across any description of the syntax or logic that is used to string them together properly, i.e. the rules for creating such a string.

The help pages on this illustrate what the connectors do in the naming string. I don't know how much more help I can be on this. All I can say, is I worked out from the default example how to create naming strings using the correct terms and connectors then from that played around a bit with trial and error to get the outcome I wanted. There was some learning curve, but within an hour or so of playing with it, I had it all figured out. And setting this up is something one does once. I've used the same naming structure for many years. EDIT. And it is true that some users simply can't get their heads around the logic. But they post here specifics on what they would like the outcome to look like and helpful forum users provide them with a naming string that does what they want. I'm happy to do that for you, but I've yet to understand an example of what you want the output to look like. Again, look at post 163 and how the specifics are layed out using real CD data.

[garym]

Re: Set-Up for Ripping

2. I keep multi disk CDs separated by subfolders for each disk because this allows proper treatment by PerfectTunes if I want to check these later with AccurateRip (e.g., after I've copied the folders to a different harddrive for backup)

Turns out I was wrong about *2 above. One doesn't have to use separate disk folders for PerfectTunes to work. All tracks can be in one folder, with naming that includes disk and track number, such as 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02 etc. (But I still personally use the process that keeps each disk in separate subfolder, as Oggy referenced above.